Dear Russell,
2014-11-06 10:41 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov at gmail.com>:
> These patches are required to make SL-5500 (collie) to work properly.
> Framebuffer maintainer added his ack to the respective patch. PCMCIA
> subsystem seems to be unmaintained at this moment. Russell, could you
> please review and hopefully ack these patches?
>> On SA-1100 framebuffer and PCMCIA drivers make use of cpufreq_get(0)
> function call to determine the cpu frequency. Russell's commit
> 1937f5b91833e2e8e53bcc821fc7a5fbe6ccb9b5 (ARM: fix sa1100 build) fixed
> the build issues, but broke two devices (Collie and Jornada720). For
> those two boards the cpufreq code gets compiled but is not enabled (as
> board files do not provide timing information for the CPUFREQ driver).
> Thus cpufreq_get(0) returns incorrect value and incorrect timings get
> programmed into the hardware.
>> PXA2xx (the very similar platform) uses Clock API to determine CPU
> frequency both in framebuffer and PCMCIA drivers. These patches make
> similar changes to StrongARM drivers.
We can continue to carry over this patch set in local tree. Having a grave bug
in upstream kernels. What is the purpose of upstream kernel then? Why did
we have so many talks about bad practice of 'vendor/local/private' Linux trees?
Do you see anything wrong with this patchset? Why do you keep on ignoring it?
Did you stop caring about sa11x0?
--
With best wishes
Dmitry